Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 405 of 424 (832339)
05-02-2018 3:57 PM


From ancient grudge break to new mutiny
It appears Rrhain is at it again (Message 31). Rather than completely derail another thread I'm bringing Rrhain's lengthy comments into this thread where they can be discussed as much as Rrhain would like to in the hopes that he will get it out of his system or better yet, find the resolution he seeks.
Rrhain has specifically said he will continue raising the issue in threads periodically and seems to have a problem with posting here so I hold that in order to contain this discussion to its appropriate place, we need raise this thread from its slumber.



I didn't ban you, Percy did.
Actually, it was Minnemooseus, so we're both wrong on that.
Ah, you meant the short 24 hour suspension. I thought you were referring to the more significant indefinite suspensions several months later, regarding the same subject matter. I tend to think of 'ban' and 'suspension' as different things.
The point is, you were part of that lovely brigade of clueless admins dropping the ban hammer (*cough*Dan Carroll*cough*). Something for which none of you have ever acknowledged let alone apologized for.
I suspended one person for 72 hours. I've acknowledged it, but I see no reason to apologize for it - with the exception of the acknowledgement that it would have been preferable to refer it to another Moderator given the circumstances.
I freely offer my apologies for suspending a forum member who was breaking a rule when that rule breaking was directed specifically at me. I don't think it's a huge deal, but in retrospect - every little would have helped. To the best of my recall, I haven't suspended any other member this way since.
As if that's all you did. Shall we quote crashfrog on the matter?
I don't really need opinion, I'd rather stick to the facts. Feel free to bring them to this discussion.
It never occurred to you to turn to Percy, Minnemooseus, or Phat and say, "No, this is wrong." And I am not the only one who noticed.
We tend to keep those kinds of discussion limited to Private Messages and the Admin Forum.
From re-reading the discussion there, AdminNem was asked to change his approach with his discussion with Berb. AdminPD was the person who raised the discussion in how we should approach the discussion since as sympathetic as she was to Berb's feelings on the matter she still felt the Administative action of staying basically hands off was right (she was the 'Admin on scene')
Percy discussed a revision of the rules, particularly rule 10 which he felt was a little too subjective and relied on judgement calls that may differ from moderator to participant - and other methods for handling the problem going forward.
Most of the discussion there surrounded proposed techniques for dealing with comments aimed at groups - with the aim towards permitting a wide range of ideas to be discussed. Thus arguing homosexuality is evil on religious grounds should be permitted, but stating homosexuality is disgusting and they should be killed probably should not.
Percy did comment to me regarding NJ's eventual suspension in that thread and my reaction to it, explaining why he felt the generally quite lengthy suspension was merited.
Even after emphatic directions to stop the discussion by the moderators - it continued and we faced a dilemma for how to deal with it. Ignoring it seemed to have no effect, suspending people made people martyrs.
Percy finally commented that the suspensions were in his opinion a mistake and removing privileges from the thread/forum the thread was in would have been a better solution - which I agreed with after one of the hardest facepalms of my life. At the time it was a function that wasn't discussed frequently and thus almost universally overlooked. After that thread, we began to deploy it more regularly. Lessons learned.
What part of "never acknowledged let alone apologized for" are you having trouble with? If you don't recognize the problems you had, you will have an exceedingly difficult time correcting them.
By all means point out the problems, I'm even less committed to the person I was ten years ago than I was when I started this thread.
It would seem that it's the exact same problem: The moderators don't pay attention to the thread and when things get out of hand, they punish the people who brought it to their attention rather than the ones that caused the problem in the first place.
It was our view that the people causing problems were the ones that got suspended.
You are specifically the problem, Modulous. You literally had someone sock puppeting on your board, spewing homophobia with aplomb, and your response was that "it didn't merit suspension." And you wonder why I'm not letting it go?
NJ wasn't sock-puppeting - his second account was created a couple of years after the incident in question.
And yes, I wonder why you are not letting it go.
You, specifically you, Modulous, said that Dan hadn't done anything wrong.
I, specifically, me, said that Dan had broken the rules in my opinion.
And you, specifically you, Modulous, banned him anyway.
For breaking the rules.
And you have never acknowledged this error nor apologized for it.
I don't think suspending someone for breaking the rules is by itself, something that a moderator should apologize for.
Not in the slightest. In fact, in your supposed "apology" tour, you specifically disrespected me. I'm a big boy. I don't actually care about your opinion of me.
Any rough from me was part of the tumble you instigated, sir. The disrespect you threw at me was orders of magnitude larger than me saying you were mistaken in a creative fashion.
But considering that you were trying to point out that people were being banned because of disrespect, because you, specifically you, Modulous, banned Dan Carroll for supposedly disrespecting you
It was disrespect according to Dan. I gave him an out, he closed it. The chance I gave him has been quote mined by you for years ever since.
What you "analyzed" and "apologized" for was "unnecessary posting."
And for moderating against someone who was directing their violation at me.
Not for any actions you took against the members of the board. Not for the consequences of those actions.
I certainly have apologised for the consequences of my actions. I am sorry for my part in contributing to the heat in my misguided quest to bring light.
your banning of Dan Carroll for coming to berberry's defense
Nah, we've been over this a million times. Dan said lots of things in berb's defence that didn't merit a suspension.
Minnemooseus' banning of me for coming to Dan Carroll's defense
I believe Moose suspended you for continuing the discussion after receiving moderator direction to cease. In Message 111, 19-July-2007, Moose said:
quote:
Drop it now! Maybe I'll start suspending (24 hours?) anyone and everyone who won't.
On 21-July-2007 you started making large posts about the subject, and were subsequently suspended for 24 hours, as warned. Rule number 1: Please follow all moderator requests.
The discussion continued regardless. Percy requested the matter be dropped on 23-July-2007 Message 160 - you argued that your gripe was a separate issue but regardless that's what happened.
You aren't sorry for what you did. Just that you got caught doing it a lot.
I'm not sure doing something in front of everyone, knowing it was in front of everyone, because it was in front of everyone suggests I would be sorry for being caught doing it.
In fact, you dismissed the entire concept as unimportant
I said that whether people were right in their complaints was a moot point 3 years later down the line.
oes it matter?
Again, that was your entire response to that question.
Indeed - does it matter whether any moderator admitted than their actions were inciting the very crisis they claimed justified those actions three years, or indeed eleven years down the line?
you point out that the problem wasn't that your moderator actions were wrong but rather that you gave any comment about why you did them in the first place
the role of the moderators should have been to state their position - explain it and then terminate further discussion.
As you quote me, that is incorrect. The mistake was continuing to argue the point after giving comment - not the giving of the initial comments.
It's the kind of thing that erodes confidence in your ability to be objective. It certainly eroded mine, which is why at the time I described you as being one of the worst moderators I had ever seen at the forum. Taking moderator action because someone "disrespected you", but not against someone else who had disrespected Berberry, made it pretty clear that you weren't using your moderator power to enforce respect among debators, you were using it to enforce respect for yourself.
You completely ignored it.
Actually I addressed it.
quote:
Moderators should exercise caution under those circumstances. I would point out that I was cautious: I expressed I would not suspend Dan for calling me a retarded monkey that was so retarded he'd fail the retard test on the grounds that
a) he was going to drop the subject
b) it was only an implied insult.
And made it conditional that were he to continue he'd have adopt a civil tone or he would be suspended.
Sure - I could have gone through the process of asking another moderator to make the call, as I have done in the past. But there is a system in place to correct for that - other moderators who can countermand an unfair suspension.
....
I don't have a problem with "That looks bad.", or "That could be seen as abuse of privelages." And as a moderator, I understand the need to bend over backwards to avoid bias and maintain impartiality.
...
There it is again - a perfectly reasonable point that moderators shouldn't act on offences against them.
Discussions broke down shortly thereafter. However, allow me to offer my (reserved) apologies. I am sorry for personally suspending Dan rather than solicit the opinion of another moderator. That Dan broke the rule is unquestionable, and the policy at the time was to lean towards avoiding suspending people with whom you were having a discussion - with that thread - and overt rule breaking being exceptions to this policy.
However, my unilateral action certainly contributed to ill feelings and upset within the community and, regardless of what the policy was, I had a responsibility to anticipate this possibility given the specifics of the circumstance. To my knowledge it is not a mistake I have repeated and moderator policy has undergone changes since - in part because of the events discussed here.
Where in that entire thread did you "concede points where you thought I was right"?
Name one.
quote:
you have a valid point about your initial suspension for violating the guidelines. I agreed at the time that Moose was wrong to do it, but Phat had also called for a stop. But yes, he neglected to check a box to post as a Moderator. Phat did that fairly regularly (see Message 88 where he is speaking as a moderator using the Phat account) - but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that suspension was unwarranted.
Message 1
And where did you express any sorrow of any kind? Wait, you're probably thinking of that part above where you claim you have "expressed sorrow" (*snort!*) and ask crashfrog to "accept your apologies."
I thought the overall tone was indicative that I felt the whole affair was a sorrowful one, but if you want it to be explicit: The whole affair was sorrowful, and I feel regret and sorrow for the way events played out.
Except that crashfrog apologizes to you in kind and your response to him is to call it "self-serving." So while you may have decided to accept it from him, it isn't going to fly with me.
Crashfrog didn't apologize for his actions or contribution to the problem - he explicitly stated he was blameless. He actually apologized for failing to make himself understood. It does seem a little self-serving to me, akin- but different - to 'sorry you are so stupid as to not understand me'.
It's been going on for more than a decade. How many times do you need to be burned by it before you learn your lesson?
You're the only one who is still going on about it, Rrhain. You have been free to come to this thread and air your grievances and discuss it all you like in the last 8 of those years. Instead, you try to derail other threads and cause an emotional response in unrelated discussions.
As soon as you, Percy, Minnemooseus, and Phat acknowledge what you did, apologize for what you did, and show actual effort at correcting the problem, I'll stop bringing it up.
I'd rather you didn't hold other people's actions or inactions against me whenever we have a disagreement about unrelated topics on this site. if you want comment from me, you just have to come to this thread which was created specifically for you to do that very thing.
As I said - the rules, the moderation policy and culture has changed since then. Which is presumably why you need to hearken back to an incident from eleven years ago rather than anything more recent whenever you want to make this point.
For the record I didn't read the rest of your comments
Of course you didn't.
Yes, of course. They were off topic in Police Shootings and I was trying to motivate you to raise them here as I requested you do. Naturally you ignored me and carried on the off topic derailment.
No acknowledgement of your mistakes.
No apology for what you did.
No act of contrition.
I apologized for my part in the problem and have done so again here. I have acknowledged several mistakes here, for example in Message 17
quote:
My particular favourite "Fuck Mod, why did you do that?" was Message 125. Confrontational, snarky, passive aggressive - it has basically no redeeming features.
If there are any further things you'd like me to acknowledge, you are at leisure, as you have been for 8 years now, to post them to this thread where we can discuss them like adults.
I'm not sure how an act of contrition would work in a forum environment. Did you have something in mind?
In fact, you doubled down. The whole thread was nothing but a massive show of ego with you trying to claim you had the moral high ground.
I offered to do this privately to avoid such a charge. You attempted to reply but it got lost in the ether apparently. You didn't suggest in your reply here that you'd prefer to take it into PMs. My primary focus here initially was to address the numerous ways you were wrong because you decided to start throwing bullshit at me in an unrelated thread and I declined to raise to your trolling.
It evolved into a relatively civil discussion about the scenario, compared with its origin story. It remains a place for you to be wrong about those times, or discuss with me any legitimate gripes you may have from there - as a means to avoid new mutinies (thread derailments) breaking out over this ancient grudge.
You never apologized for actually doing the wrong thing at every turn.
Though I don't think I did the wrong thing at every turn. I would certainly handle things better these days.
You also, have never apologized for your contribution to the problem.
Note, you're not apologizing for banning Dan Carroll.
Dan should have been suspended, and I think 72 hours was a reasonable time frame. But I should have asked another moderator to make the call. Of course, whether that would have changed things is an open question. According to crashfrog he would have assumed the Admins were circling the wagons if the other moderator agreed a suspension was warranted.
You're not confronting the banning of berberry.
Not my action. Take it up with Percy. I think it was fine and I've explained why.
You're not confronting Minnemooseus for banning me.
I did at the time. I don't think it was a terrible act to be suspended for 24 hours. You did continue to post about the debacle after he asked for a stop, even if you want to argue the specific post you were suspended for didn't meet the standard.
You're apologizing for being "confrontational, snarky, passive agressive."
Yes. Is that problem somehow?
n_j (Hyroglyphx) was spewing homophobic bullshit all over the board and specifically targetting berberry and the response of the moderators of this board was to punish berberry and anybody who stood up for him.
I don't think NJs homophobia construed a problem in the context it was being discussed as I've said numerous times. I did a review of the posts at the time and showed that in most cases it was Berb that responded to NJ first - not NJ seeking Berb out to respond to so I rejected the targetting claim too.
Berb was suspended initially for breaking all civility - his final post, as I've said numerous times - in that thread that sparked the suspension was, in its entirety:
quote:
Fuck you
Which is the kind of thing that has resulted in suspension many times. He was indefinitely suspended 6 months later after the issue raised its head again and Berb said
quote:
But I don't think Percy ever contested the point that n's comparison was insulting. He just thought I was being thin-skinned, and illustrated his feelings by portraying me as an hysterical, menstruating woman.
In any event. I believe anyone who has asked from that time has been reinstated, and I doubt berberry is remotely interested in returning. But I have unsuspended him anyway.
Hyroglyphx admitted to being n_j and he suffered no consequences while berberry is still banned indefinitely.
His account was merged with NJs. I think being associated with all that is reasonable punishment. The only people I'm aware of who have faced consequences for creating an alt-account are those that do so to circumvent suspensions.
So when you say, "I was a contributing factor," exactly what was your contribution, Modulous?
I continued to post beyond the point where it was necessary. This resulted in replies to my post that continuously contributed towards escalating the situation. Had I stopped earlier, having explained my position clearly, Dan would not have called me a retarded monkey. Had I called for another moderator to take action maybe, it would not have resulted in additional anger - though given the mood of the thread - I suspect if someone else had done it the anger would be the same though the target may have changed.
So that was my contribution - continuing to rise to the escalating anger at the moderator action/inaction. I should have at best - signed off the thread with a short, firm declaration of my position.
A lesson I think I took into account 6 months later when the issue came up again. That was on the back of you strongly insinuating that NJ was a paedophile if you recall. An incident that was a direct spark that lead to the Great Purge.
You still can't bring yourself to the idea that n_j (Hyroglyphx) did something wrong, can you? You said, "The Admin team seemed to be in consensus that whatever N_J was doing - it didn't merit suspension."
Correct. Members were given ample opportunity to present their evidence but it seems it was insufficient. I saw NJ arguing that homosexuality was a sin / immoral and presenting an argument to that effect. I thought his argument was flawed, and his conclusion wrong - including from a moral standpoint. But it didn't break the rules to argue that homosexuality was immoral so...
Well, what do you think, Modulous? What was your opinion? I presume there's a bit of a majority vote going on in the halls of moderation so that if most of the admins don't think there's a problem, then their opinion rules, but what was your opinion? Was n_j's (Hyroglypx's) treatment of berberry worthy of suspension?
No. That opinion was unanimous in the halls of moderation I believe. My opinion on that hasn't changed.
You keep harping on the fact that I only made one post in that thread. Well, did you notice that my post was #264 in that thread despite it having only been a few days between your post and mine?
Yep - you've made more posts about this topic in threads where it is off-topic than you have in here.
But you did. You all did. berberry is still banned. Dan Carroll, too.
Dan was also suspended indefinitely 6 months later by Percy for showing signs of being a 'divisive presence'. But I'll undo that suspension now too - though again I suspect he won't care.
One wonders why I let it go. Of course, I can't seem to win with you. If I bring it up, you complain about me bringing it up. If I let it go, you complain that I didn't respond.
If you bring it up in threads where it is off-topic I will complain that there is a thread about it you could use. When you continue to post off-topic about this subject I'll point out that you have posted more off-topic comments in that thread than on-topic ones in this one.
The timing was all wrong. Even if we assume that there was some admonition to me, I was banned for a post that was made *before* the admonition. This isn't a question of "benefit of the doubt."
Maybe I'm mistaken, but it was two days after the request that Moose made the request.
And even more importantly, it assumes that Phat was correct...which is part of the problem: He wasn't. The base problem still remains unacknowledged:
Well I think we had certainly demonstrated long ago that you would not be satisfied by further discussion. So I think Phat, Moose and Percy were all correct when they attempted to terminate that line of discussion. But even if they were wrong - the moderators requests to terminate the discussion should be followed.
When berberry fought back, he was punished, not n_j (Hyroglyphx).
Nah, Berb was suspended for a short period for getting increasingly pissy when the Admin team disagreed with him about whether rule breaking was occurring from NJ.
When Dan Carroll came to berberry's defense, he was banned under some trumped up charge of "disrespect" (so why was n_j (Hyroglyphx) still around?)
Because hurling insults directed at members of the board, which Dan did, was against the rules. Arguing in favour of the immorality of homosexuality was not. Dan made a dozen posts defending berberry without getting suspended. Crashfrog made two dozen without getting suspended. Clearly defending berb was not what got a person suspended in that thread.
When I came to Dan Carroll's defense, I was banned under some trumped up charge of "violating administrator directives" (so why was n_j (Hyroglyphx) still around?)
You made nearly two dozen posts in that thread too. Your suspension was light, even if was in error.
When crashfrog came to my defense, you avoided any attempt to deal with the heart of the problem.
I disagree, but still he didn't get suspended did he?
So we're back to the original problem: You haven't acknowledged your wrongdoing, you haven't apologized, and nothing has changed. And to your comment to me in that thread, I will continue to question your intelligence and intellectual honesty until you do.
Have at it. But please do it in this thread where it is at least on topic.

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2018 6:42 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 408 of 424 (832669)
05-07-2018 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Rrhain
05-04-2018 6:42 PM


Re: From ancient grudge break to new mutiny
For crying out loud, Modulous. This isn't about you acknowledging that you banned Dan Carroll.
It's about you acknowledging that you were *wrong* to have banned Dan.
I have acknowledged that I probably shouldn't have suspended Dan, but he did merit a suspension but that another should have been the one to do it.
Answer the question, Modulous:
Do you think n_j (Hyroglyphx) did anything wrong? He sock puppeted the board in order to post homophobic bullshit all over the board.
Was that OK? Did he do anything wrong?
NJ didn't sock puppet. NJ was his main and only account at the time. The Hyro account was created some time later.
Did NJ do something wrong? A broad statement. To the point however, he didn't break the forum rules - although later on he did, and was suspended for it.
So it never occurred to any of you to get rid of the person who started it? That someone who ALWAYS compared being gay to rapists, murderers, pedophiles, drug addicts, etc. and that this ALWAYS derailed the thread might not be the best person to keep around?
I didn't see NJ start something that was against the Forum rules. I asked for evidence and that which was presented it to me didn't persuade me that he had. I only saw NJ pointing out that atheist morality / moral relativism struggles with determining moral and immoral acts.
What is it with supposed "adults" who can't seem to handle the idea of punishing the bully but instead get pissed at everybody else who has to deal with the bully? Somebody points out to you that you have an ass on your board and you get upset that they called him an "ass"?
I was fine with NJ being an ass, that's not against the forum rules - you'll be glad to hear.
The only person I got 'pissed' at was Dan, who called me a retarded monkey for disagreeing with him over subject. There were plenty of people who managed to make their points surrounding their view of how NJ was to blame, without insulting people.
That wasn't the lesson you were to learn.
It was to have paid attention to berberry and focused your moderator functions on the person causing the problem:
n_j, AKA Hyroglyphx.
I disagree that NJ was causing the problem. It seems unlikely you'll be able to do a better job today than people were doing then. So if that's what you want, you probably won't get it - but feel free to try.
When someone points out to you that a homophobic bigot is spewing hatred all over your board, you don't drop the ban hammer down on the person who brought it to your attention simply because you didn't like his attitude.
I didn't see any hatred being spewed.
Mod writes:
I, specifically, me, said that Dan had broken the rules in my opinion.
Followed immediately by:
Mod writes:
For breaking the rules.
And you don't see any contradiction in that?
I don't see a contradiction in saying that Dan broke the rules in my opinion and that Dan was suspended for breaking the rules, no. I assume you misread that.
"I don't think you broke the rules, but I am going to suspend you for breaking the rules."
The correct paraphrase would be "I think you broke the rules, but I'm going to ignore it as long as you stop posting or start posting in a more respectful and constructive manner."
Oh, that's right: Message 110. Now, I realize that I'm only a mathematician and thus I haven't studied simple arithmetic in over 40 years, but I am of the opinion that 110 < 111.
I got suspended for a message that was posted BEFORE ADMINNEMOOSEUS MADE HIS DIRECTIVE.
Had you not made the post after Moose had gave his directive, I'm confident you would not have been suspended. The reason then, that you got suspended was for the post you made after the directive.
This isn't the first time this has been pointed out to you. Is there a reason why you have such a problem remembering?
I not only remembered, but I referenced this fact twice in the post you are replying to here. Had you taken care in reading it you might have seen that. Here are those references:
quote:
you argued that your gripe was a separate issue
quote:
Your suspension was light, even if was in error.
To be clear, the directive is Message 111 - to drop the subthread over the whole homophobe thing. Then you posted Message 116, which really was part of the same subthread:
quote:
n_j directly and specifically insults gays
This post was made at 10:15 AM using my board clock. You were suspended at around 11:00 AM using the same clock: Message 216. The suspension message cites Message 116 as the reason for the suspension.
Your argument at the time was:
quote:
Adminnemooseus seems to think that I was talking about the gripe between n_j and berberry. I wasn't. That was only incidental. Instead, I was talking about the way the admins have responded to it.
Thus, as I said in my previous message "you argued that your gripe was a separate issue" - but its a tenuous argument at best - but I did afford you the benefit of the doubt.
The idea you were suspended for no reason, lacks merit. Being as charitable as possible you were suspended in error.
And that's just me. berberry got suspended for posts he hadn't made yet...just fantasies that Percy had regarding posts he thought berberry might make.
I've made this point several times now but berberry was suspended for posts he had made, and to inhibit him from making further regrettable posts. Suspensions aren't only a punitive tool.
And where did you express any sorrow of any kind?
The whole affair was sorrowful, and I feel regret and sorrow for the way events played out.
That isn't an apology, Modulous.
It wasn't meant as an apology, Rrhain. You challenged me on whether or not I had expressed sorrow. I indicated I thought my tone was overall a sorrowful one, but then went on to express the sorrow explicitly.
That you're sorry other people were hurt only means you're sorry you got caught, not about what you did.
I didn't say I was sorry other people were hurt.
Are you sorry about what you did?
I am sorry for not bringing in another Admin to make a decision about Dan.
I am sorry for posting way too many posts, treating it like a debate etc.
That still, after over a decade, you still don't know what the problem is shows that no, you cannot discuss this like an adult because you have been told over and over and over again what the problem is:
nemesis_juggernaut spewed homophobic bigotry over the board, and doing it as a sock puppet to boot.
It's not that I don't know what you think the problem is, it's that I disagree that it was a problem.
nemesis_juggernaut spewed homophobic bigotry over the board, and doing it as a sock puppet to boot.
He posted as NJ, his only account at the time. And although he expressed his homophobic opinions, I didn't see his comments as contravening the rules.
When it came to your attention, you shot the messenger. Do you acknowledge this error?
I only suspended one person - long after the matter had come to my attention - for something quite different from bringing the matter to my attention. Even if we credit Dan as being the one that brought it to my attention - that doesn't give him the ability to break the rules himself with impunity.
When others pointed out that you shot the messenger, you shot those messengers. Do you acknowledge these other errors?
All I did was explain why I suspended Dan and why I didn't suspend NJ. Hardly shooting the messenger.
When he admitted that he sock puppeted the board to engage in this monstrous behaviour, you let him stay. Do you acknowledge this error?
He did not admit to any such thing.
He told us that he had left EvCForum for a while, and during that time he had reflected and his views on religion and homosexuality alike had changed. He created a new account upon his return some months later.
quote:
Yes, yes I do. And if you the hammer of God needs to strike down on me, I will accept whatever fate is given. Just bear in mind that I didn't have to reveal myself. There are a few reasons I did
1. When I was going to come back, my Nemmy account was closed.
2. I had changed, and in a sense, didn't Nem die when Hyro was born? I'm obviously the same person, but my views are very different now.
So now I must clear the air. I legitimately was away from the forum twice, each time for about 8 months at a time. What can I say, my philosophies have evolved, much to the pleasure of many I'm sure.
To be perfectly honest, the biggest reason I didn't say anything was not because I was afraid of what my former detractos would think of me, but for the sake of Buzsaw. And Buz, if you're out there watching, it's you I want to apologize to more than anyone.
Message 172
Given the specific nature of the circumstances I didn't think it warranted punitive measures - though I did point out it was technically a breach of forum rules - and I deferred the decision to Percy who decided that merging the two accounts was the way forward.
I'm not sure how an act of contrition would work in a forum environment. Did you have something in mind?
At this point, it's very difficult. The first would be to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
There is no absolute guarantee - but has it happened in the intervening eleven years? Have I done anything you find terribly egregious in that time as a moderator? I think changes in moderating principles, rules and protocols have been a significant factor as well as just generally learning from mistakes as individuals.
Some called for you to step down as a moderator since you seem to be incapable of responding rationally regarding this issue (both the instigating issue and the aftermath). Again, it's been so long that what good could come of it?
I was fired during the Great Purge. In fact - my being fired was the first volley of shots during that time:
Message 1:
quote:
Everyone's moderator status but my own has been removed,
I was reinstated a few months later.
You could unban berberry and Dan Carroll and all the other messengers that got shot.
As I said in my previous post I have already unbanned berberry and Dan. Message 258. I didn't ban them in the first place, but as a gesture of good faith I have done so. The rest were bans that had nothing to do with anything I did - they were all Percy's decision (he was the only moderator during the Great Purge as noted above), or the decision of the individual members themselves. Take the rest up with Percy.
Some sort of statement regarding how bigotry will not be accepted on this board would help.
Bigoted opinions can be argued here, although members should be cautious when doing so. You can put forward an argument as to why you think homosexuality is immoral or mixed-race marriages or whatever. However, EvCForum isn't a medium to host hateful rants and they won't be tolerated here.
should someone else come along to do it, are you all willing to respond to the bigot rather than the people pointing it out?
If someone were to do exactly as NJ did, I would not suspend that person. I wouldn't suspend someone for expressing their opinion that it was unacceptable.
And that's why you still haven't learned your lesson.
Someone points out that you have a guest taking a dump in the punch bowl. You ignore this and shoot the messenger. Someone else tries to point out that you just shot the messenger and there's still someone taking a dump in the punch bowl. You blow them off. They call you an ass hat for your incompetence and you think the problem is that they called you an ass hat?
I didn't blow Dan off (fnar) - I explained to him why I didn't find his argument persuasive. I saw no dumping in the punch bowl by the guest, NJ. Dan tried to generate a number of arguments to show that NJs actions were punch bowl dumping. I didn't agree. So he called me an ass hat. That was certainly a problem. If you can't discuss things with a moderator without insulting them, then you don't get to continue discussing things for a little while. He came back later, of course..
In Dan's case he went to a bouncer and issued his complaint. The bouncer said that whatever NJ was doing, wasn't worthy of him getting kicked out. So Dan insulted the bouncer. Try this in any establishment. See if insulting the security staff persuades them to do anything but either ignore you or kick you out.
Modulous: Dan would never have "disrespected" you if you had simply done your job and dealt with the problem of nemesis_juggernaut.
But NJ wasn't being a problem in my view. Dan disrespected me because he disagreed with my view. Sometimes you disagree with the moderator in a debate. Hurling insults at them is not the correct way to proceed.
We're back to the question you refuse to answer:
Do you think n_j (Hyroglyphx) did anything wrong?
I've never refused to answer. Homophobia is a wrong stance, morally. Arguing from a homophobic position is not against the forum rules. Arguing that your opponents' moral system cannot determine what is moral sexually and what is not moral sexually is not against the forum rules.
And that's why this will continue to be brought up.
You don't understand what you did wrong. You don't understand why it was wrong.
You are welcome to continue to try to persuade me.
nemesis_juggernaut spews homophobia all over the board and the response of the moderators is to punish the person pointing it out? Percy agrees that n_j is being insulting, but it's berberry who is the hysteric?
If berberry had merely pointed it out, he wouldn't have got suspended. He started attacking the moderators in a variety of ways and it seemed to be escalating in intensity.
If NJ was directly insulting a specific member of the forum, that'd be a problem. Causing a specific member to be offended while you are discussing the morality of sexual activities (or anything else) is not against the rules.
We all got banned because we told the moderators about the homophobia being spewed over the board by Hyroglyphx in his sock puppet form of nemesis_juggernaut and you didn't want to hear it.
That theory is falsified by the fact that Dan did it repeatedly without getting suspended. Berberry said it repeatedly without getting suspended. You did it repeatedly without getting suspended. Dan got suspended after insulting a moderator for disagreeing. Berb was suspended after he accused the moderator team of bias due to their sexuality - and then when I pointed out my sexuality compared me with Larry Craig, then said 'fuck you', then insinuated he thought I was a dirty ape or a racist or something....
You were suspended after the discussion had been going for a week and the direction to stop was given. Whether or not that was in error is irrelevant to the reason.
Crashfrog did not get suspended.
So no, I'm afraid the theory doesn't stand.
You're just inches away from doing it again, Modulous, aren't you? If I piss you off, you're going to say that it's because I'm "disrespecting" you or being "off topic" rather than confronting the root cause:
You piss me off all the time Rrhain, why would you think am remotely interested in suspending you? In the eleven years since that incident - and several years before it, do you have any other examples of me suspending people for anything of this nature? You've cited one example of me handing out a 72 hour suspension once that you find disagreeable. You have another example of a time you think I should have suspended someone but didn't (but then, we had a rather large roll of moderators back then and I don't see you having hounded them over this particular bugbear). You do however, seem to have a habit of merging my actions and Percy and Moose's together, and blaming me for all the things you find they did wrong.
How about this?
Message 122
I suspended someone for calling me a motherfucker. It was a little before all that kicked off - unacceptable? Or was modi's argument so crushing to my worldview that I suspended him out of malice?
I will however ask for moderator adjudication the next time you decide to derail an unrelated thread with this nonsense.
A bigot showed up and you sided with the bigot rather than the target.
We sided with allowing discussion. Personally I'd rather homophobic arguments be publicly dismantled by competent people rather than censored.
And as the noise from the crowd trying to get you to pay attention to the bigot got louder
Loudness was not a good technique. We were all aware of NJ and we were paying attention. I was involved directly in some of the relevant debates with NJ. It wasn't that we were not aware and needed people to tell us, it was that we were aware and we didn't think it was a forum rule violation. All the repetition, the volume, the insults in the world won't change that.
Are you sorry for what you did? Not for the aftermath but rather because you recognize that you (and the other moderators) bear the sole responsibility for this? That everything you did was wrong?
I have said what I feel responsible for, and have apologized accordingly.
I am sorry I suspended Dan rather than having another Admin do it. I am not sorry Dan got suspended.
I am sorry for continuing to try to explain the reasoning, rather than closing off the discussion - bringing more heat than light in the process.
I am sorry for the occasional moments of being snarky.
I am not sorry for not suspending NJ.
Dan was responsible for his own actions. He wanted us to make judgement calls, we told him that judgement calls can go the other way. He insulted a moderator. The moderator said that in his judgement that would merit a suspension - but that it would be overlooked under certain conditions. Dan broke those conditions, confirmed the judgement was correct and got a short suspension.
Percy and Moose are responsible for their actions - take up any complaints you have with them.
Berberry had the capability of expressing dissatisfaction and registering his complaint without splurging anger, casting aspersions etc.
Other members did so without a problem.
My expectations are that you will either ignore the key points I've made here and elsewhere in your response or find what I say insufficient. If you feel the repetition will be helpful or useful, you are free to continue. Either you lack the skill to persuade me that NJ should have been suspended, or NJ should not have been suspended. I don't see that state of affairs changing and I don't really see the point in going over things over and over again.
But I am trying to accommodate you, I've given you my completely honest assessment of the situation. I've tried to acquiesce to as many of your requests as I find it is reasonable to do. I will continue to work through things with you as long as you want, spending many hours of my time to this discussion.
In return, please make the effort to read what I'm saying in good faith, to remember what I've already said, to try and avoid this discussion being an endless loop saying the same things over and again. And if you can, try and adopt a tone more appropriate to working towards a mutual understanding - even if we don't anticipate complete agreement on all points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2018 6:42 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by Rrhain, posted 05-07-2018 9:08 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 411 of 424 (832680)
05-08-2018 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Rrhain
05-07-2018 9:08 PM


Re: From ancient grudge break to new mutiny
He was a homophobic bigot who derailed the board in general and attacked a board member in particular.
Well if he did attack a particular board member and he wasn't suspended for it, then I would certainly apologize for that oversight! I didn't however, see this attack, and when I asked, the only responses I got where of NJ NOT attacking a particular board member.
If you think I overlooked an instance of NJ attacking a board member in particular I'd be happy to review it.
That you can't bring yourself to say that, that you think this is a "broad statement," that you have the gall to claim "he didn't break the forum rules," is the reason why this is still festering.
Well whether or not an individual did 'something' wrong is a broad statement. NJ did do some things wrong, and where they were against forum rules he was either warned, suspended or not noticed.
We've been over it before, but if you feel the need as I said above - please do point out where he broke the forum rules and I'll either apologize for not suspending him for it or I'll explain why I believe it didn't break the forum rules.
You have no integrity and no intellectual honesty and you will be called out for those failings every single time.
I suggested you work on the tone a little, with a view to reaching a mutual understanding. You are free to ignore this of course, but do you think this confrontational style is actually going to help here? It seems to me, if I am the terrible person you make me out to be - aggressive attacks on my character would only serve to entrench my position as I become defensive.
I would have thought adopting a friendlier attitude may cause me to lower my defenses and let slip something that categorically shows the world my terrible motivations, lack of integrity or whatever.
But, I guess that isn't really your intent here is it? I wonder that your motivation here isn't to try and resolve this matter at all - but just vent at me. Well if that is indeed what you want I'm happy to oblige. Vent away. Because, you know, I'm a terrible person that way.
Despite the fact that every single thread had this bigotry thrown in by the same person and every single time, it derailed the thread and brought all discussion to a grinding halt, you seem to think that to do nothing was to "allow discussion."
I think the derailment was a function of people thinking NJ was spewing homophobic hatefilled bigotry and reacting to that, rather than reacting to what NJ was actually doing.
Let's look at the climactic thread as an example. That thread was Gay marriage and the law. This is the thread that basically broke the camel's back and resulted in the Great Purge.
The opening references an earlier thread that had been derailed - all it took was NJ saying he agreed with Ron Paul's stance on gay marriage to spark that off - a flurry of responses followed that. In this case Subbie opens regarding the law and rights etc.
NJ responds with the following points
  • Marriage is defined as a man and a woman
  • Freedom is regulated by laws and a justice system
  • Legalizing gay marriage would be a slippery slope to allowing further sins
  • More people are saying they are bisexual - this seems to be socially driven as it is mostly young people
  • On the one hand maybe we should not prohibit gay marriage, but on the other - relaxing our stance may lead to further taboos being questioned, and legitimized such as paedophilia
Pretty standard Christian talking points surrounding gay marriage and the law.
He then replies to Schraf's response with some requests for support, expanding on his socialising/cultural argument and asking her if there are any repercussions to accepting homosexuality. Message 9
Subbie gives a list of historical things which have been legitimate (Slavery, racism, sexism, religious persecution, etc) and argues that these are things that were put in place supposedly for societies benefits without considering the individuals. NJ replies with his own list ( incest, polygamy, prostitution, pedophilia, zoophilia, regulating drugs, regulating cigarettes and alcohol) and asks if the same principle applies. That sometimes an individual's desires has to take second place behind the good of society. Message 10
Granny then said same-sex marriage has been legalized elsewhere without any inkling of anyone fighting for other taboos such as paedophilia in those countries. NJ responded that he believed that paedophilia is on the rise and that he regarded paedophilia as more abhorrent than homosexuality Message 13
Your response to this was Message 127
quote:
Why is it you keep telling us about your fantasies of sex with children?....Why is it that the thought of having sex with someone of your own sex immediately makes you think of having sex with a child, NJ? Are you trying to tell us something?
Which was quite the derailment attempt. NJ didn't respond.
Message 28 covers quite a few topics in his reply to Schraf. He argues homosexuality perverts God's natural order, that if homosexuality is an innate sexual trait and we should therefore tolerate it - what about other sexual practices such as paedophilia or rape - if they were innate dispositions should we tolerate them? That Christian's that single out homosexuality as a special kind of sin are wrong, that homosexuality is widely believed by cultures to be an problematic etc.
In Message 30 he responds to subbie's point that this should be focussed on the law by saying that the law is the law there's not much else to say but to discuss why it is the law and why it should remain so.
Message 45 he reiterates that the law is that homosexuals can't marry
Message 47 Thomas Jefferson believed men should be free and equal but owned slaves.
Message 53 not much here, a comment about Oscar Wilde presumably referencing a relationship with a younger person given the source is NAMBLA and a point that homosexuality was once illegal but it no longer is so arguing that child abuse is illegal now doesn't settle the matter. This would result in a minor derailment later on.
Message 61 Homosexual marriage is not legal/illegal. It should be a matter for the states
Message 73 the 14th Ammendment is very broad, NJ disagrees with DOMA. The only parity between homosexuality, rape and paedophilia is that they are sexual sins. He asks 'what basis is homosexuality a fundamental right, and yet, prohibit the others? On what basis? On what authority? Why is one intrinsically good, where the others are intrinsically bad? '
You reply to this by arguing if they are different, why bring them up if not equivocate then you say
quote:
what is it about thinking of sex with someone of your own sex makes you think of raping your infant son? Are you trying to tell us something?
Message 128 which is clearly antagonistic and likely to swing the debate wildly away from the topic. A clear derailment right there. NJ doesn't respond.
This is what sparked the Great Purge, remember.
Message 80 the law of several states proves how lawmakers view homosexuality
Message 59 molbiogirl posts about paedophilia and nothing else -- a bit of a derailment.
Message 85 NJ retorts on the same topic - continuing the derailment
Message 119 is about the law
Message 130 is about the Constitution, that ultimately it has a moral foundation and asking how the Constitution permits gay marriage
Message 136 more about the intersection of morality and law, with the question "If homosexual marriage is a basic right, what arbitrates that? What basis do you have to allow this, but not to allow something like incest?"
Message 139 continuing the morality/law discussion. The fact that we're talking about rights, NJ argues, pretty seals the deal that ethics is involved here. Homosexuals have (rightly) got equal protection, says NJ.
Message 142 rights are intrinsically moral issues, but if you insist says NJ give me the legal, rather than moral basis for permitting one sexual sin rather than others
Message 143 where is the line of demarcation when it comes to rights to marry? What is the legal objection to me marrying my sister?
Message 145 States vs Federal stuff
Message 150 But why is consent the big qualifier here?
Message 150 Marriage is between a man and a woman. It means you can't marry fruit.
You reply in Message 152
quote:
Unless and until you can explain why heterosexuality doesn't lead to you raping your infant son, then mixed-sex marriage remains equivalent to same-sex marriage.
quote:
Why does having sex with someone of your own sex make you think of raping your infant son while blowing the cat and then scooping out the leavings and pouring them into the intake manifold?
quote:
you keep on telling us about your fantasies of raping your infant son every time the question comes up.
Hidden in there are some reasonable points, but you are clearly spoiling for a fight here. Your comments seem designed to evoke a bad reaction - goading you might say.
Message 155 NJ does respond to you. He asks again what makes gay marriage a right
Message 157 NJ responds to a post of mine which put the discussion of consent into contract law terms. And then he stops discussion.
Well I don't see NJ derailing the thread particularly there. I see your combative self. Your posts making it to the Moderation procedures thread that between you and Berberry particularly results in Percy beginning the Great Purge.
Everything else is ancillary. That you don't think Hyroglyphx as nemesis_juggernaut did anything wrong is the source of the problem and until you fix that, it will never be resolved.
Well you've failed to persuade me that NJ did anything wrong so I guess we'll remain at an impasse.
A bigot came to the board and you sided with the bigot.
He held pretty typical views from Christians who are against homosexual marriage - liberal by most of their standards. I certainly think it is valuable that those views be aired and discussed, dissected and show to be wrong. Much better than they go unchallenged - after all, the opinion of the country to gay marriage was shifting - and that was at least in part because the arguments were being shown to be problematic, prejudicial and so on. NJ put forward the best arguments I've seen in favour of that position. They were wrong, but they were much more reasonable, analytical and challenging than 99% of people trying to make similar points.
The law takes a while to catch up most of the time, but a few years latear we formally won the argument and it was legalized - which is awesome.
But those times leading up to that were tough times - lots of emotionally charged discussions all around the world and particularly in the USA. I don't give us all the credit, but I think we may have been influential in changing NJ's mind and it certainly gave me good practice when having similar debates in other venues where I hope I was also able to change a few minds. I wonder if suspending him for putting forward his views may have served to harden his, and any spectator's hearts? Cause people to wonder if our arguments had weight behind them if we had to silence them. I'm not saying that would be reasonable, but we're not talking about entirely reasonable people here.
Nevertheless I think the debate was good to have, but it seems berberry had been worn down in the fight for rights and was sick of hearing people like NJ air their views. That's reasonable - there was a lot of awfulness out there at the time and today. Some people, such as yourself saw to take an aggressive stance against those views - which I can respect. However, when that spilled over into squabbling and personal attacks something had to be done.
I don't agree with Percy's reaction entirely - but I can sympathize with him. He too was growing tired of a fight. The constant fight to keep the debates civil.
Well, if you want to carry out, be my guest. Your last post is not as verbose as one might normally expect so I suspect you are losing the motivation. So if your steam has been vented and this is the end, I guess I'll see you in this thread in a few more years. Or more likely I'll be asking a moderator to reign in your offtopic derailment! Until then...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Rrhain, posted 05-07-2018 9:08 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2018 2:47 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 414 of 424 (832699)
05-08-2018 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 412 by Rrhain
05-08-2018 2:47 AM


Re: From ancient grudge break to new mutiny
Well if he did attack a particular board member and he wasn't suspended for it, then I would certainly apologize for that oversight! I didn't however, see this attack, and when I asked, the only responses I got where of NJ NOT attacking a particular board member.
And that's why this will never heal, Modulous.
A homophobic bigot spewed his bullshit all over the board, attacking a member of the board.
Well if he did attack a particular board member and he wasn't suspended for it, then I would certainly apologize for that oversight! I didn't however, see this attack, and when I asked, the only responses I got where of NJ NOT attacking a particular board member. I see you didn't provide any new evidence of him attacking a particular board member so since you repeated yourself I guess I'd do likewise.
if you are truly the rational one you claim to be, that the repeated explication of your failures by multiple people on the board would only serve to increase your shame.
Repetition isn't persuasive.
Instead, you get defensive.
Let's take a look at your defense:
Well as I said - being aggressively confrontational with someone may result in a person defending themselves against the charges being levelled at them. It's your tactic, not mine.
What you posted wasn't my defence. It was me explaining why I didn't think NJ was guilty of derailing a thread with reference to specifics.
Boom. Right there. RIGHT THERE. That's the derailment.
I don't see it.
The suspension happens immediately, n_j is told in no uncertain terms that this homophobia will not be tolerated, and he is warned that if he tries to equate being gay to pedophilia ever again, he will be banned post haste with no further discussion.
NJ didn't equate being gay to paedophilia.
Instead, you get pissed at *me* for turning his smear on gay people around on him: He's the one who brought up pedophilia. Nobody else was thinking of sex with children. And yet, he did. As history has shown in his other posts on the topic, every time he thinks about sex with another man, he immediately thinks about raping his infant son.
I criticized you for making it personal. When did he think about raping his infant son? That seems to have been an invention of yours. Accusing a board member, and a victim of childhood sexual abuse of fantasizing about engaging in familial childhood sexual abuse themselves is crass, it doesn't engage any of the points being made and it only serves to add heat to the discussion rather than light.
Nobody else seems to be able to come up with any connection between being gay and rape, incest, or pedophilia, certainly not in any way such that being gay would lead to it while being straight would not, but he keeps making this connection.
They are all things NJ considered to be sexual sins. With the exception of homosexuality they are all sexual acts we all agreed are either illegal or immoral. Well, possibly incest too in some cases.
Because it's homophobia, pure and simple.
Not against the Forum rules. As Percy notes:
quote:
Purposefully inflammatory and derogatory speech is a violation of rule 10. But saying something like, "Gays should not be allowed in the military," is a position that can be rationally and dispassionately discussed, in the same way that "Women should not be allowed on the battlefield," is a position that can be rationally and dispassionately discussed. Those who find upsetting the mere expression of such opinions, and much, much worse ones, might want to be more circumspect about which threads they participate in.
I didn't find NJ making inflammatory or derogatory speech. He was making an argument that 'Gays should not be allowed to marry', however wrong that argument was.
in Message 18
and also
quote:
As the Forum Guidelines have evolved over the years we've tried to keep this in mind. As much as possible we want to avoid making forum guideline enforcement a judgment call. I don't think we've done anywhere near as well as the NFL in this, but that is our goal, to never make judging a member's intent part of the assessment. Your view of NJ's behavior is a judgment call.
Further, political correctness seems a philosophy best viewed askance. I'd prefer that EvC Forum not serve as a haven for those who are easily offended on some topic or another. The censoring of minority or offensive views is anathema to open discussion.
in Message 70. I agree with the policy, but that's what it was. You are, in effect, shooting me - the messenger of this policy. You are free to dislike it, argue it should change, but while I may have influence in them - Percy is the the final decision maker in that regard.
The very point of equating gays to pedophiles is to smear gays and prevent any discussion about the rights of gay people.
NJ didn't equate them. Indeed he said he felt paedophilia was a worse offense than homosexuality. And it didn't prevent discussion. Seems to me that suspending people that think homosexuals should not have the right to marry would do more to prevent discussion.
As I said back then: If my statements about n_j are beyond the pale, then n_j's statements are as well. They go together. They cannot be separated. To be offended by my statements necessarily requires offense at his.
You made it personal. You specifically said NJ was fantasizing about raping his infant son. That's the difference. NJ did not even say that homosexuals fantasize about raping little boys. So no, they are not one and the same.
Yours was a personal and inflammatory attack against a member of the board. NJ's arguments surrounding morality and the law were not.
Strike three. NAMBLA is tantamount to blood libel. n_j should have been removed at least one post ago. He's now saying there is an organized cabal of gays seeking to rape children.
Pointing out that NAMBLA exists is not against the forum rules.
The very point of equating gays to rape gangs is to smear gays and prevent any discussion about the rights of gay people.
I agree. It's just NJ didn't do that.
Are you really saying that someone correcting the homophobic smear about gays and pedophilia by pointing out that the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are straight is a "derailment"?
In a thread about homosexuality and the law, it was the early stages of a possible derailment. As I said, the seed was sown earlier and I blamed NJ for that. It didn't however, result in a full derailment.
Why on earth are we even talking about pedophilia in the first place?
Because marrying children, like marrying homosexuals, was not permitted by the law. NJ agreed with both but could see others arguing in favour of the one and was querying the legal and moral grounds for drawing the line.
And you should have been right there with me. For you to side with the bigot only shows your own opinion on the matter.
And what do you think that my own opinion is on the matter? Are you going to follow berberry's lead and suggest I am self-hating now?
My opinion has been explicitly stated: I'd prefer these matters be openly discussed than silenced.
And you have the gall to claim that you were stripped of your admin rights because of your actions?
I made no such claim. I said
quote:
I was fired during the Great Purge. In fact - my being fired was the first volley of shots during that time
Which is true.
And despite repeated requests by the board for you to dump the bigot, you decided to ban the victims.
The only person I suspended was for Dan, who was not calling for NJ to be banned/dumped. Who was more of a 'victim' of NJs offences in your opinion - me or Dan? What would make someone a victim of NJ's alleged rule breaches?
I was talking about Percy, who was the only one with power to issue bans at the time we were discussing. Somehow you turned that to me being the one that made the decisions. You really need to get that Percy and I are different people.
Unless and until you can understand that bringing up murder, pedophilia, incest, drug abuse, etc. in a discussion about sexual orientation is in and of itself bigotry and derailment of the discussion, that there can be no discussion in that context, that it is only brought up specifically and purposefully to smear gays, put them on the defensive, force gay people to try and justify their basic humanity and very existence, you will continue to fail.
It seems the merry go round will continue in that case. I'm not stranger to homophobia, having literally felt its fist on a number of occasions. I've tackled some of the worst examples of homophobic tactics in my time - such as when I wrote a short essay on Paul Cameron at Everything2 - a sort of precursor to wikipedia - back in 2002.
Of the many people with homophobic views I have discussed this matter with over the last 20 years NJ was the most reasonable, dispassionate and intelligent - faint praise perhaps. It seems to me that if we are to engage with people who have homophobic views on this forum, there are few people who it would be more preferable to engage with. I've been in arguments where the homophobe equates homosexuality with paedophilia and NJ was not saying anything like what those people were.
Every time you show you are incompetent, I will continue to bring this up.
Since there are years between you bringing this up, I will take this as a compliment. In any case, attempt to derail a thread with it again and I will defer the matter to the moderation team.
1) Acknowledge your error. n_j was the problem and you failed to respond but instead attacked the victim
Nope, don't think NJ was a problem. He caused occasional problems but he readily accepted his rebukes when they happened. Homophobia is a problem, but it should be tackled from the moral high ground. Accusing him of fantasizing about raping his infant son loses the moral high ground. Silencing him through suspension loses the high ground. It would be taken as evidence that even making the points in a reasonable and dispassionate way results in 'the left' losing their minds and being unable to meet the challenge in kind - instead having to insult or silence their detractors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2018 2:47 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2018 3:33 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 416 of 424 (832712)
05-08-2018 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by Rrhain
05-08-2018 3:33 PM


Re: From ancient grudge break to new mutiny
And that's why this will never heal
Well I'm trying to discuss this openly and honestly with you with the goal of reaching an understanding. It seems clear this is not your approach. Your approach seems to be to try and use bluster and threats of an ongoing campaign of disrupting civil discussion with an eleven year old forum drama to bully your way into achieving submission. It didn't work eleven years ago. It didn't work eight years ago. It's a wonder you think it'll be effective today.
A bigot spewed his hateful bullshit all over the board and "I don't see it" is your response.
Yup, I didn't see hateful comments. I've a lot of first had experience at being the subject of hateful comments. I have explained ad nauseum why I didn't think the comments were hateful, why I believe they were within the forum rules. I understand that people feel differently and why, but my feelings haven't changed on this matter regardless. Questioning my intelligence or integrity certainly won't change my mind.
If you don't want to try and reach a mutual understanding then I would suggest you just acknowledge it as one of those times you disagreed with moderator action and move on. You are welcome to hold onto the anger for another ten years but it seems worthless to me.
Multiple people point this out to you and "NJ didn't equate them" is your response.
Multiple people also pointed out that NJ didn't break the forum rules. Multiple people saying something doesn't make it true, does it? Some people asserted their belief that NJ was equating them. I don't share that belief. Those people failed to persuade me. I'm not going to take actions I don't believe are correct regardless of who is clamouring for what.
The board collapses as a result and you and Percy whine about "political correctness."
That's simply untrue.
You sided with the bigot, Modulous, and if that means you feel attacked, that you are being accused of being "self-hating"...
Well...
If the shoe fits. It would explain a lot.
The shoe doesn't fit at all.
And you wonder why Dan Carroll speculated about your mental capacity?
Not really. He thought what his point of view was self-evident and decided the only way to rationalize people disagreeing with himwas to question their intelligence. Like you have done. It's not something to wonder about at all, it's rather banal. But calling someone a retarded monkey is still against the forum rules and Dan could have got his points across without doing it. The only wonder is that you are still bringing it up.
And you wonder why berberry told the admins to fuck off?
Not really no. Berberry was frustrated and had reached a point in his life where he wasn't able to deal with that kind of thing.
Until you acknowledge your error, apologize for it, and take action to ensure this never happens again, this will never be over.
I have acknowledged several errors and apologized for them, I took the (symbolic) action of unsuspending Dan and Berberry. We have changed moderator policies (see for example Message 9 where Percy suspended Fosdick...the three votes in favour of permanent suspension were Percy, Moose and me). Other examples of suspensions related to homophobia include another Fosdick, Message 15 and other people such as Message 187, Message 31)
But clearly you won't be satisfied with the concessions you have - only achieving your will in its entirety would be sufficient. It seems unlikely, as I've said - but if you want to continue trying I'm not going to stop you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2018 3:33 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 4:19 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 418 of 424 (832795)
05-10-2018 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Rrhain
05-10-2018 4:19 PM


Re: None so blind as those who will not see
Well I'm trying to discuss this openly and honestly with you with the goal of reaching an understanding.
No, you're not. You're trying to justify your disgusting actions.
I understand that you dislike the fact that I didn't suspend someone, but I'm not sure this is an effective way to enhance healing - your stated motivation.
Nevertheless, I certainly can't avoid explaining why I didn't suspend someone while you are challenging me on that very fact. At least I can't if you want me to address the concerns you are raising in an open and honest fashion.
If you want to operate under the assumption I'm being dishonest there's really no possibility of us healing. You certainly have no grounds to believe I am being dishonest. It seems to me if you want to consider I'm operating in a field of dishonesty you try to advance the arguments to try to expose the dishonesty OR you simply cease discussing it (since what would be the point?) Repeating things doesn't seem to be working, regardless of the degree of hostility you use.
On the other hand, you might consider the position 'Mod and I see things differently here and it doesn't look like we'll see eye to eye on this matter so, having made my views known it is time to move on'.
You bring up examples of other people who were banned for exactly the same thing....and yet cannot understand how n_j did the exact same thing and you're OK with it.
Well we can discuss the specifics of those cases in more detail if you'd like - explore if there are any differences between them and NJ in my view. But it sounds like you are conceding that moderator policy did indeed change after the events in question, in the direction you wished it to, and that we have taken steps to try avoiding a similar situation from occurring again.
It would make the discussion more conducive to advancing if you could be explicit where we agree rather than focussing solely on our points of disagreement. Not typical in a debate perhaps, but if our purpose here is to move towards healing I think it'd go a long way. Show me you are as committed to the process as you want me to be. From my perspective it feels you aren't interested in healing, only in poking wounds and trying be vindicated. Show me I'm wrong, please.
The board collapses as a result and you and Percy whine about "political correctness."
That's simply untrue.
And yet, you actually referenced Percy whining about "political correctness" in the very post I was responding to, and then quoted him literally whining about "political correctness," or did you forget?
The reason it is untrue is twofold.
1) The alleged 'collapse' occurred six month after Percy made his comments about political correctness. Your sentence structure implies a different order.
2) Percy may have 'whined' about Political Correctness, but I didn't. I've asked you before to try to avoid conflating the two of us.
As if equating gays to pedophiles, murderers, rapists, drug addicts, etc. "is a position that can be rationally and dispassionately discussed, in the same way that 'Women should not be allowed on the battlefield,' is a position that can be rationally and dispassionately discussed."
I agree. But you already know this, because I've said it to you before. I just don't think NJ equated those things.
...when discussing the rights of gay people, to compare them to pedophiles...
I think it's reasonable to point out that Conservative Christians - a group whose participation is encouraged at this board - believe both homosexual sex and child abuse are sexual sins. I think it's acceptable in a discussion about homosexuality for a Conservative Christian to give their opinion on this.
Would you agree with this?
After all - what's the point of debating Conservative Christians on matters surrounding homosexuality if we don't allow them to express their position? As long as their position addresses the matter in discussion in some fashion it seems unreasonable to silence them on this.
That is, after all, the heart of the homophobia: Gay people aren't comparable to straight people. Gay people don't equate to straight people.
Indeed. Conservative Christians don't think heterosexual sex is a sexual sin...or at least in so far as it is one - it is mitigable through marriage, an avenue not afforded in their theological view, to homosexual relationships.
Here's a hint, "Equating X to Y" is not a claim that someone said, "X is Y." It's that in looking at a particular issue where the trait under examination is X, the comparative examination is being made not to other expressions of X but rather to the completely irrelevant Y.
Well when I see the verb 'to equate' I see it as meaning
'to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent: '
NJ was not doing this. His only point was that homosexual acts and paedophilic acts are both sexual sins. That's the only similarity they share. He explicitly stated that he regarded paedophilia as worse. So he certainly wasn't saying they are equal in their sinfulness.
The only reason to make this comparison is to poison the well. There is no "discussion" to be had in that environment. Do not play dumb and pretend that you don't understand this.
I understand well enough. It's not a question of understanding your point on this - it's that I disagree that it was the case in the situation in question. There was plenty of room for discussion - NJ didn't say for example 'Berberry engages in sinful acts, therefore his arguments are false' - which would be poisoning the well in a direct fashion, one which would indeed eradicate the very point of discussion.
The main thrust of his discussions went along the lines of, "My moral stance is that God's word is absolute. I believe God's word says that homosexuality and child abuse are sexual sins which is why I cannot support homosexual marriage or the marrying of children. On what grounds do you say that homosexuality is an acceptable sexual practice that deserves legitimizing through marriage and paedophilia is unacceptable? It seems to me that your basis is entirely arbitrary'.
The fact of the matter, Modulous, is that Percy whined about "political correctness." And as we have seen all too often over the years, the moment a person brings up "PC," they either just made or are about to make an outrageously bigoted statement and are trying to poison the well in advance from any blowback. Percy showed his true colors there.
Percy and I disagree or at least disagreed regarding political correctness. Take up any gripe you have with Percy, with Percy - not me.
And your defense of him is showing yours.
I didn't defend him. I agree with his sentiment that
quote:
The censoring of minority or offensive views is anathema to open discussion.
I've done my utmost to avoid defending anyone else other than where it intersects with my own actions while also trying to address as many of your concerns as possible. The one intent may have come into conflict with another from time to time - but I have certainly told you to take your problems with Percy up with Percy.
More to the point, I was showing that my not suspending NJ after his expression of 'offensive views' was certainly within the realms of the intents of the owner of the site wanted things to operate. IF you don't like that, you are free to say so, but you can't say I wasn't doing my 'job' properly. NJ may have been saying things that were offensive to some people, but it wasn't a suspendable offense to do that no matter how much you argue it was.
And that is why this will never heal. Equating gays to pedophiles, murderers, rapists, drug addicts, etc. is by definition "hateful."
We'd come closer to healing if you accept publicly that I agree with you that equating gays to paedophiles is hateful but that I don't believe that is what NJ was doing.
Which makes your actions all the more reprehensible. You should know better. And here you are, *still* siding with the bigot. Oh, that shoe fits perfectly, doesn't it?
It will also help the healing process if you stopped that too.
I am not a person who hates themselves for their sexuality. However, I have experienced extremely serious, life-threatening, mental health crises during which emotions such as self-loathing do indeed surface, along with its bedfellow suicidal ideation which is often followed by....well I'm sure I don't need to join the dots further. I ask you politely to not insinuate in that direction again as it does pose a minor, but not ignorable, risk of triggering those kinds of emotions. My coping mechanisms are likely capable of handling it, but I know from experience that repetition even of the most unfounded or unreasonable statements - can have a power that can overcome coping mechanisms. So however unlikely that might be, I'd rather not take that risk and I simply politely ask, nay implore, you to cease that line of attack.
Suffice to say, when I am in crisis I don't come here. I wasn't in crisis during the incident in question and the charge is utterly false. I am proudly and happily queer.
I hope exposing this vulnerability to you will perhaps have the additional advantage of persuading you my commitment to engaging in an honest and frank discussion. I trust that you will not be so crass as to deploy this knowledge as a weapon in your quest to humble me. If you do, our discourse will be immediately terminated for my own health and I will be asking for moderator intervention.
To the point in the quote - I think it is better to have bigoted opinions exposed and refuted. I won't suspend someone on the grounds I find their view abhorrent, distasteful or offensive. I believe the fight against homophobia requires uncomfortable and unpleasant discussions. This is a place where those kinds of discussions should be allowed to happen, the flaws exposed, destroyed.
I understand, as you hopefully see from my comments above, that this kind of discussion - one which approaches a persons very sense of identity - can result in strong emotional reactions. I sympathize with those that have those reactions completely.
From what I can tell there are only two ways to proceed in light of these facts
1) We declare that discussions surrounding identity issues are not permitted at all. Race, religion, culture, sexuality. Or we selectively pick certain identity issues to avoid
2) We encourage members who do find themselves unable to discuss those topics in a dispassionate manner (an understandable situation, which carries no shame) avoid participating in those discussions.
Neither is a 'perfect world' which would see us without people with homophobic or bigoted views existing at all, and thus render the kinds of debate on those subjects we have here moot - but I see no alternatives. The notion that I use my moderator powers to impose my views or to silence or penalize those whose views I find abhorrent, offensive or distasteful is in its own way something I find abhorrent.
If you cannot understand my perspective by now, you really are doomed to retain your anger on this matter. It serves no purpose to repeat yourself, there is no utility in disrupting and derailing future threads to make your opinions on this matter known. Here they are, in public. If I have not satisfied you, if I have not apologized for the things you think I should - do you estimate I will if you continue repeating your charges in a variety of hostile or confrontational ways?
You can continue feeling I am a bad person. Cruel, capricious, a nasty little bigot enabler. But let's not exacerbate the poison's sting by continuously having it circulate, by injecting venom upon venom. We don't have to agree, but at least we can co-exist in some kind of state of mutual understanding.
Please, let us put this affair behind us, eh?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 4:19 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 8:03 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 420 of 424 (832800)
05-10-2018 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Rrhain
05-10-2018 8:03 PM


Re: Dip him in the river who loves water
Indeed, I am operating under the assumption that you do not wish to discuss this honestly for your every action shows this to be true.
Ah well. So what's the point, then? I've tried to reach out to you. But it seems the honest truth won't be interpreted as such by you.
Rather than recognize the reprehensible actions, you complain over "sentence structure," as if the revelation that Percy and you think this is merely an issue of "political correctness" is somehow mitigating (in his case) and something of relevance to the issue at hand (in yours).
I didn't complain over sentence structure. I pointed out that the way you structured your sentence implies something which is untrue. Because you challenged me regarding the untruth of it.
I don't think this is an issue of 'political correctness'. Those are Percy's words alone. Not mine. That conflation also leads to untrue beliefs on your part. You can't seem to separate us and I'm not sure anything I can say can change this - so I can merely point out the error knowing it won't make a difference to you.
Jaywalking and murder are both crimes. To think that one leads to the other, which n_j directly stated, is not "reasonable."
NJ expressed his opinion that social acceptance of one sexual sin will lead to the social acceptance of others. It's wrong, but it's certainly reasonable for me to point out that this is not atypical Conservative Christian thought.
You agree with that right?
I asked you if you could agree to certain things in my last post, things I thought would be uncontroversial. It seems you are not capable of stating your agreement with anything I say. Again, this is not how two people come together in order to foster healing. I can presume only that you don't care about healing or are incompetent at obtaining it.
n_j didn't merely state, "they are both sins." He directly asked how we can still condemn pedophilia, murder, rape, drug abuse, etc. if we allow gay people the right to get married.
Of course he didn't merely state 'they are both sexual sins'. That was however, the only way he drew a similarity between the sexual sins he was discussing. That's what I was saying with that. You continue to communicate to me that you aren't willing to try to understand what I'm saying to you.
And yes, he argued that our moral framework cannot consistently work to accept homosexuality and condemn paedophilia. He was saying that our moral framework should treat them equally, but we don't, which shows how we aren't committed to that moral framework at all, that our views are inconsistent.
And you still can't see it. In fact, you'll distort the facts (dare I say it? "Lie") in order to pretend that something else happened. Anything and everything to confuse the issue in order to support the bigot and deflect from your own actions.
What facts did I distort? What am I doing to confuse the issue exactly?
And you wonder why the operating assumption is that you do not wish to discuss this honestly? You harp about "where we agree," but here's the thing:
We don't agree.
So did we suspend Fosdick and Baldrick as a means to prevent this kind of thing happening again or not? I thought you agreed we had done that, without explicitly agreeing. Was I wrong in that assessment? I thought you had attempted to skewer me using this fact which I had taken to mean you agreed with it. Did moderator policy change in a direction you think is favourable with regards to this, or not?
Do we agree that Conservative Christians are regularly homophobic?
Do we agree that we debate Conservative Christians at this site?
Do we agree that we sometimes discuss the morality of homosexuality, homosexual marriage and the law at this site?
If we don't agree on these things, or if you cannot bring yourself to admit that we agree - this discussion is beyond hopeless!
Everything you did, everything you have done, is wrong.
Every single thing. From the moment you entered this issue more than a decade ago, you have done the wrong thing. There is not a single thing you have done correctly.
It's going to be difficult to reach any agreement with someone who is so absolute as this.
I understand you think it was wrong to not suspend NJ, but given this 'error' was it wrong for me to explain why I did not feel he should be suspended? Should I have remained silent?
Was I wrong when I did not suspend Dan in Message 59? Should I have suspended him at that time?
Was I wrong to engage with Dan to discuss how potentially offensive ideas could be worked into an argument that would be acceptable according to the Forum Rules? Was I wrong to ask him to furnish me with links to posts by NJ to examine them further? Message 64?
Was continuing to ask Dan for specific posts he found problematic so they can be reviewed wrong? Message 68?
Was I wrong to call NJ a homophobe? Message 71?
Was I wrong to not suspend Dan in Message 86? Was I wrong in merely issuing a warning?
Was I wrong to ask Crash for his opinion about what should have been done? Message 140?
Was I wrong to ask for supporting evidence of Crash in Message 142?
Was I wrong to issue a warning to cavediver for being a dick about you? Message 150?
Was I wrong to admonish NJ's actions in Message 220?
Was I wrong to advise you that it would do us no good to go over this again in Message 106?
Was I wrong to try to prevent total topic derailment in the Gender And Humour thread when you tried to resurrect this argument and I gave a short answer and suggested we start a new thread or take it into PMs? Message 222?
Was I wrong to try to prevent topic derailment in the Police Shooting thread when you decided to resurrect the argument again? Message 35?
Was I wrong to acknowledge I contributed to the mess that lead to the crisis?
Was I wrong to apologize for sometimes being snarky?
Was I wrong to apologize for personally suspending Dan rather than have another moderator review the situation?
Here are two acts of mine that you have hammered on as me being wrong:
1) I didn't suspend NJ and you think I should have
2) I suspended Dan for 72 hours and you don't think I should have.
That's really it. You disagree with my reasons for those actions so I suppose we could add
3) My explanations for those two actions.
Even your unbanning of berberry and Dan Carroll was done sanctimoniously and only after you were cajoled into it (yes, I know you did it before I explicitly stated it, but let us not play dumb.)
I unsuspended Dan and Berberry while responding to your comments. Here is the 'sanctimonious' way I did it
quote:
quote:
berberry is still banned. Dan Carroll, too.
Dan was also suspended indefinitely 6 months later by Percy for showing signs of being a 'divisive presence'. But I'll undo that suspension now too - though again I suspect he won't care.
I'm not sure how that's me 'making a show of being morally superior', but ok. Here is berberry:
quote:
In any event. I believe anyone who has asked from that time has been reinstated, and I doubt berberry is remotely interested in returning. But I have unsuspended him anyway.
Not sure what you find problematic there - how is it sanctimonious?
You didn't do it because you thought they were kicked out unfairly, unjustly, and incorrectly. You did because you still think you were right and fantasize that you are being magnanimous.
I did it to show you I am serious about trying to address your concerns. I didn't suspend them indefinitely and I don't think suspending them indefinitely was the correct course of action. I don't agree that the Great Purge was the right course of action in general. I understand Percy's actions, and I don't think he's terrible for doing it - though I think it was the wrong decision.
I have never reversed an indefinite suspension that Percy has issued. He owns the site so I think its reasonable to defer to his decisions on this matter. It's expected you'd find some way of interpreting me taking an unprecedented step for me, intended as a symbol of my sincerity and pervert it into some insincere act intended to lord it over you or something. By definition it seems, no matter what I do, you will find some way of interpreting it to be the wrong thing.
What, then, is the point of this discussion? Have you not grown bored of finding ways to say I was wrong? Or just repeating the same ways of of saying I was wrong?
Everything you did was wrong, Modulous. Everything you are doing now is wrong.
If you want something out of this conversation, it should be abundantly clear that your confrontational manner is not working. Why do you persist in your folly? I'm a bit of a William Blake fan, so I'm happy to persist in the hopes his infernal proverb 'If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise.' may turn out to be true - and after all one should 'Listen to the fools reproach! it is a kingly title!', so can you please try and learn from your error sooner rather than later? Try a different approach. It certainly can't fail worse than your present one.
You continue to support the bigot.
This affair will never be behind us so long as you continue to do so.
I continue to think this forum should be a place where we can confront arguments based on bigotry with argument to show that bigotry is wrong. I continue to think using Admin powers to silence those arguments just because some people find them offensive is wrong.
I disapprove of what NJ says, but I will defend his right to say it. As long as statements operate within the rules and guidelines set down by Percy (with consultation with other board members), I won't suspend someone regardless of how much I disapprove of their opinions.
If you think that is supporting a bigot - so be it. Let us hunker down for infinite amounts of useless back-and-forths on the subject if this truly won't be behind us until I have a change of heart about that matter.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 8:03 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 11:09 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 422 of 424 (832816)
05-11-2018 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by Rrhain
05-10-2018 11:09 PM


fRe: Dip him in the river who loves water
Hope springs eternal. Perhaps one day the honest truth will be seen by you. Phat finally figured it out. Perhaps you will, too.
Good luck with that.
I didn't complain over sentence structure. I pointed out that the way you structured your sentence implies something which is untrue.
You do understand that the second sentence directly contradicts the first, yes?
Have you ever come across the Principle of Charity? It involves 'interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible' {wiki}. The reason to do this is that by not doing it, you risk arguing against the wrong things, pointing out non-existing flaws wasting everybody's time.
The subject of the complaint was the untruth, not the sentence structure. The sentence structure was one of the reasons the statement came out as untrue. I wasn't complaining about sentence structure, I was complaining about the falsehood. If you had tried to understand the second sentence in light of the first, you might have got there yourself - but you seem intent on finding reasons to disagree, rebut and argue rather than trying to reach any form of any agreement, regardless of how slight.
A homophobic bigot spewed his bullshit over the board.
And you sided with the bigot.
I continue to think this forum should be a place where we can confront arguments based on bigotry with argument to show that bigotry is wrong. I continue to think using Admin powers to silence those arguments just because some people find them offensive is wrong.
I disapprove of what NJ says, but I will defend his right to say it. As long as statements operate within the rules and guidelines set down by Percy (with consultation with other board members), I won't suspend someone regardless of how much I disapprove of their opinions.
If you think that is supporting a bigot - so be it. Let us hunker down for infinite amounts of useless back-and-forths on the subject if this truly won't be behind us until I have a change of heart about that matter.
It seems you are not capable of stating any error you made regarding this core issue.
Perhaps you should be focussing on trying to persuade me an error was made rather than repeating yourself. Repetition is not persuasive.
And you wonder why berberry told you to fuck off?
Not really no. Berberry was frustrated and had reached a point in his life where he wasn't able to deal with that kind of thing.
You wonder why Dan Carroll compared your mental faculties to that of a deficient simian?
Not really. He thought what his point of view was self-evident and decided the only way to rationalize people disagreeing with himwas to question their intelligence. Like you have done. It's not something to wonder about at all, it's rather banal. But calling someone a retarded monkey is still against the forum rules and Dan could have got his points across without doing it. The only wonder is that you are still bringing it up.
You wonder why crashfrog said:
Nobody's waiting here for you to come up with the perfect bullshit justification for bad actions. We're waiting for you to stop taking actions that are bad.
It's really extraordinarily simple, Mod.
Not really, it was pretty self explanatory. As I responded at the time:
That's fine, it really is. I cannot say that I always take good actions - the debate did get rather heated with people saying rather unfriendly things so I can openly admit that I might not have acted in the perfect manner. At first I did not believe action was necessary. I thought action was only necessary when the debate about the debate was getting too heated and people started calling the admin team childish names.
You're trying to justify your bad actions with bullshit, Mod. It's never going to work. That you continue to try shows that you don't care at all about fixing this but only about saving face.
Then I'll stop.
You literally cannot see the problem. How you, specifically, contributed to the problem.
Then it falls to you, the only person around here who gives a shit, to help me see the light. Repeated assertions, however, won't achieve that.
The only way this ends is for you to stop trying to justify your bad actions and admit that you fucked up.
The first step then would be to persuade me that I fucked up.
Dan should not have been suspended at all, so you don't get any cookies for not doing it at some other point.
Not asking for cookies. I'm asking if I was wrong to not suspend him at that point in the discussion. It's telling that you found a way to avoid answering it.
You flat out lied about your reasoning for unbanning berberry and Dan Carroll.
No I didn't.
Dan was also suspended indefinitely 6 months later by Percy for showing signs of being a 'divisive presence'. But I'll undo that suspension now too - though again I suspect he won't care.
Once again, I'm reminded of someone's comments about the mental capacities of certain simians because it seems you can't remember that we can see what you wrote in Message 258 of Suspensions and Bannings Part III
I think 10 years (Message 130, and Message 130) is sufficient.
So where's the lie?
No admission that they shouldn't have been suspended in the first place.
That's not really the thread for that discussion - it is generally just announcements regarding suspensions. Percy is the one that suspended them indefinitely. I stated that I thought it was wrong in my previous post.
Instead, you still think you were right and fantasizing that you're being magnanimous. You wonder why you're being called out as sanctimonious?
I think I am right that Dan warranted a 72 hour suspension. I think you are right that he didn't warrant an indefinite one. I fail to see the sanctimony in how I unsuspended Dan and Berberry.
I can see the sanctimony in parading around saying 'You were wrong. We were right. Your actions were wrong. It's obvious you were wrong, you are still wrong. You sided with evil. You were wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. I was, and I remain, right'. There does seem to be a strain around here of someone 'making a show of being morally superior to other people.'
On the other hand, I might be wrong. By all means supply your evidence and your reasoning and I will examine it. I've certainly admitted to a few wrong steps already, places I made moral errors. Have you done likewise?
Even your claim that you "acknowledge you contributed to the mess" is wrong because you didn't acknowledge your actual actions that contributed to the mess.
I acknowledge that some of my actions contributed to the mess.
Do you think my posting to, in Crash's words seek the 'perfect bullshit justification for bad actions.' contributed to the mess? I do.
Do you think my suspending Dan rather than asking for another moderator to review the incident were, in Crash's words was an action 'that appear{s} corrupt' and that 'it's the appearance of corruption that corrodes confidence in authority' and that therefore this contributed to the mess? I do.
I understand you think there are offences yet atoned for, but do we agree with these elements? I understand you think a partial, fractional, acknowledgement is insufficient - but do you concur that I did acknowledge some things that I did that did contribute to the mess?
Or are you so determined to see wrong, to not be seen to be in agreement with me, that you cannot even do this?
And *still* you can't understand that your justifications are bullshit and that you will never be able to justify it no matter how much bullshit you craft.
Apparently so. Still, I'm not going to suspend someone if I don't think they merit suspension. I'm not going to say I should have suspended someone when I don't they warranted a suspension. I understand you aren't interested in my explanations for why I don't think it merited suspension and so I'll endeavour to stop provisioning you with those explanations. The ball is now in your court to take what you know of my position and find a way to persuade me of my error.
Even when the results of your actions are OK (few and far between), the motivations and reasons for why you are doing them are wrong which means we cannot trust that the problem has been resolved and that you won't continue to do the wrong thing in the future.
Speak for yourself. There is no 'we' at this point. But fair enough. If twelve years of service has resulted in only 1 week of errors surrounding one incident then I'd say that's not too bad. I have never claimed perfection, and it would be unreasonable of you to demand it. If that one week has destroyed your trust in someone more than the other other 635 weeks have built it I'm sorry about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 11:09 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Rrhain, posted 05-11-2018 2:56 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 424 of 424 (832821)
05-11-2018 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by Rrhain
05-11-2018 2:56 PM


Re: fRe: Dip him in the river who loves water
Apparently, neither is the truth. You lie about things and when confronted with your own statements showing the lie, you pull a Trump and claim it wasn't what you said, that somehow you were misinterpreted, whining about the "principle of charity."
Oh I was lying now? I thought the original charge was that I wrote a sentence that contradicted the first and that my response was that you had erred in your eagerness to find fault.
All I have are the facts. I have no magic wand. I cannot make you see how awful you behaved and are still behaving. Only you can do that and the only method I have is to continually confront you with your actions in the hope that you'll finally get it.
If I were in your shoes I'd be providing examples of the awfulness along with explanations as to why it was awful - I'd take into account your responses as I try to reformulate my answers in an attempt to persuade you. But feel free to continue repeating assertions and being confrontational. It's not worked so far but I'm sure just a few more repetitions will yield different results.
It's very telling that you cannot see the point of this discussion. "But I didn't ban Dan Carroll at that point! That's a good thing we can agree on, right"? No, because what you should have done was say to him, "You're right, Dan. The suspension of berberry was wrong. Percy was wrong to do it. n_j should be reprimanded. I am going to correct the issue regarding berberry and see if I can help persuade Percy that he made the wrong decision."
That's why I prefaced my question with
quote:
I understand you think it was wrong to not suspend NJ, but given this 'error'
You really can't bring yourself to agree that NOT suspending Dan at that point was right. It's quite artful of you really. You can't even say that given that I didn't see anything problematic, that asking people to provision me with examples to review was in fact, not wrong. Amazing.
Instead, you want to focus specifically on the out-of-context action that Dan wasn't suspended at a certain point in time.
I was exploring the claim that everything I did was wrong. I don't think that's true. I think, at core, I did only 3 things wrong in your view. 1 - Not suspend NJ, 2 - suspend Dan later, and 3 - try to explain my actions.
What you did here was add a fourth - I didn't protest berb's suspension. But you still can't even agree that the trivial things I did right were right.
It's very telling that you seem to think it can be divorced from the context in which it happened and that somehow makes what you did "reasonable."
I'm simply asking if it was wrong to not suspend Dan at that point. The answer is simple 'No". Since you refuse to answer - you haven't seen what my conclusion to that is and thus you cannot say that my point is that it makes what I did 'reasonable'. For the record, that wouldn't be my conclusion. My only conclusion would be that your statement claiming that 'everything you did was wrong' was too broad. Uselessly so. It gives me no expectation that you are handling this discussion in a fair minded fashion. Why would expect positive results when you are doing everything you can to come across as unfair?
Every time you post, you have a chance to do that. You have a chance to say that you were wrong, that berberry, Dan, crash, and I (and others) were right, that even though you don't understand exactly what it was that you did wrong, you can see by the effects that it was a major cockup on your part, that you have some work to do regarding how to handle bigots when they start dumping turds in the punchbowl, and that you can only hope we can forgive you for your clearly inappropriate actions.
I certainly agree I made mistakes, handled the situation in a far from perfect fashion and there's always work to do towards improving moderation methods. As I have already said, and as you refuse to acknowledge even partially addresses the situation.
Dan's methods for drawing attention to his perception of a problem was, but his reaction to disagreement with his position by insulting people was not the right behaviour.
Berb was understandably upset, but resorting to calling people names was not the correct path to take.
Your behaviour was acceptable for the most part, other than your trademark inability to drop the subject when progress doesn't seem to be likely and gradually building heat rather than generating light. But your actions 6 months later were certainly problematic with your comments about NJ's infant son. Even berb thought that was a bit too much! And you have argued they were equivalent to what NJ was doing, in which case even you think they are problematic. Two wrongs etc.
Crash's behaviour was basically fine. But like the rest of you, I didn't agree with the points he was making.
Asserting you and they were right, and people that disagreed were wrong is certainly not going to change my mind. Regardless of how often you repeat it. Sorry about that, but that's just the way I am.
But you don't. At every turn, you make the wrong decision and try to come up with a new bullshit justification. The latest is trying to say that because you didn't just ban us all immediately, that somehow shows you did something right.
You are claiming everything I did was wrong. It is perfectly natural for me to raise counterexamples. Asking for evidence, asking for clarifications, not suspending people for criticizing moderators....they don't seem to things that I did that were wrong. You are really struggling with acknowledging this. It won't destroy your entire basis of your dispute, but it will show you are being fair-minded. Give it a whirl.
Are you so determined to be right, to cling to "blame on all sides," that you cannot do this?
I have already admitted various things I did were wrong. Can you admit that some of things I did were right? You can't can you? And that's why healing cannot happen.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I bet you really believe that, don't you?
You're a craptacular moderator, Mod. Between you and Moose, I don't know which is worse.
I see. Do you have examples beyond this particular scenario?
Here are some of my suspensions
Thread 2. I made 25 posts there, and they're all short - anything objectionable?
Thread 3 - only 29 posts there so again should be easy to check through.
You could go through my Admin messages here but that's 900 messages and not all of them are accessible to you so that's more of a challenge.
Though that said, if I'm as craptacular as you suggest I expect finding a few examples of terrible behaviour should be simple enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Rrhain, posted 05-11-2018 2:56 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024